The State and Employers' Associations in British Columbia: 1900-1932 Andrew Yarmie
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Document generated on 09/27/2021 1:57 a.m. Labour/Le Travailleur The State and Employers' Associations in British Columbia: 1900-1932 Andrew Yarmie Volume 45, 2000 Article abstract Through a case study of British Columbia employers' associations this article URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/llt45art02 examines the complexity of capital/state/labour relations during the early 20th century. To evaluate the sources of employers' strength and to determine the See table of contents restrictions placed on their dominance, this study uses current theories of the state as a framework. They provide opportunities to examine British Columbia's governments as being either a "captive state," in a position of Publisher(s) "relative autonomy," or "autonomous." No single theory explains the events of this period. In some sectors of the economy, employers were able to control Canadian Committee on Labour History state policy, but the contradictions created by the state's two primary objectives of capital accumulation and legitimation ensured that it would take ISSN steps to retain its autonomy in order to maintain capitalist class institutions. 0700-3862 (print) 1911-4842 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Yarmie, A. (2000). The State and Employers' Associations in British Columbia: 1900-1932. Labour/Le Travailleur, 45, 53–102. All rights reserved © Canadian Committee on Labour History, 2000 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ The State and Employers' Associations in British Columbia: 1900-1932 Andrew Yarmie Introduction IN 1903 THE FRASER RIVER Canners' Association claimed that: "Politicians, admit ting and over-estimating the strength of the so-called labor vote, have largely pandered to labor organizations which has resulted in legislation prejudicial to moneyed interests."1 Nine years later, T. Turnbull, a representative of the Amalga mated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, complained that the government "seems to conserve the interests of labour exploiters by giving them advantages which are denied to the workers. " Governments ignored labour while they treated capital with "the tenderest solicitude." These opposing opinions disclose an issue that still divides theorists — the role of the state in a capitalist society. To date, the debate between the two major opposing theories, the society-centred and the state-centred concepts, remains unresolved.3 Radically opposed theories depicting the state as 'University of British Columbia, Special Collections (hereafter UBC), International Pacific Fisheries Commission (IPFC), Fraser River Canners' Association (FRCA), Executive Com mittee minute book, 9 June 1903. British Columbia Information and Management Services (hereafter BClMS), Provincial Labour Commission, 1912, GR 684, Box 1, File 2, vol. 1, 156-7. Society-centred theorists have emphasized the importance of class relations, class struggle, and the balance of power as determinants of the form and the functions of the state. The state-centred approach, in contrast, has accredited the state with its "own institutional logic" and the capacity to develop policy independent of societal forces. The major theories arc analyzed in B. Jessop, State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place (University Park, Pennsylvania 1990), 1-46, 278-306. According to Finkel's analysis of state theories, pluralism, which views the state as a neutral arbiter, has been the least effective in explaining the role of the government in both structuring society and being shaped by societal forces. Its inadequacy in explaining the class system and the inequalities that have been established Andrew Yarmie, "The State and Employers' Associations in British Columbia: 1900-1932," Labour/Le Travail, 45 (Spring 2000), 53-101. 54 LABOUR/LE TRAVAIL either "captive," "relatively autonomous," or "autonomous" have not been able to come to any agreement on the state's position. When any single theory is applied to the historical specifity of British Columbia during the first decades of the 20th century, it cannot accommodate the complex and shifting reality of the state's motives, actions, and position. While the state's two primary objectives of capital accumulation and legitimation remained constant, its strategies for dealing with capital and labour changed to meet new challenges. As a consequence no single theory explains how at certain times the state was "captive," or controlled by employers in one sector of the economy, but, at the same time, retained a position of "relative autonomy" in the area of welfare legislation. Nonetheless, these models can illuminate some of the complexities of employer/state/labour relations within British Columbia. They provide insights into the role of business in the province's political culture and explain some of the contradictions which occurred as the state evolved from a minimalist to an interventionist institution. More specifically, these theories reveal the extent to which the province's employers' associations were able to determine state policy. Major changes in both the socio-economic and political spheres during the first quarter of the 20th century were altering the relations between the business community and the state. The close connections established in the 19ui century were being challenged by the growth of trade unions, labour politics, and new political concepts which emphasized state intervention as a means of maintaining the existing social order. Attempts to alter labour conditions or legislate welfare provisions were not easily accepted by employers who regarded them as detrimen tal to the economy and their autonomous control over industrial relations. When dieir "right to manage" was questioned, employers countered by establishing employers' associations for the dual purpose of destroying trade unions and preventing legislation. Although these two objectives are interconnected, the main focus of this study will be on the political initiatives taken by employers to block legislation. Here, they were to benefit from the state's need for revenue from economic development and the structure of a capitalist economy. The interdepend ence between government and business that developed in this period was an inherent outcome of a political culture that emphasized the exploitation of natural resources and the pursuit of prosperity. On these issues, both major political parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, shared similar theories and policies. Both would also respond to labour's demands for a greater share in society by state intervention, but political discussion and debate always came back to the central issue of expanding the province's economic potential.4 The pervasiveness of capitalist cultural values were another important factor in the promotion of employer hegem- and continued in society have weakened its argument. See A. Finkel, Business and Social Reform in the Thirties (Toronto 1979), 23-4. "See E. Dobie, "Party History in British Columbia, 1903-1933," in J. Friesen and H.K. Ralston, eds., Historical Essays on British Columbia (Toronto 1976), 70-1. STATE AND EMPLOYERS' 55 ony within the province's political culture. During the period 1903-1915 the confluence of interests between Richard McBride's government, the societal goal of prosperity, and the business community's ambitions were most evident. From this position of power, the business community successfully portrayed itself as the bearer of public well-being, while at the same time it applied reactionary strategies •against the labour movement and state interference in their affairs. Within the post-World War I environment which called for greater state intervention for the welfare of its citizens, the tactics of government and employers necessarily changed. The need to defuse labour unrest without changing the social order made government industrial and social policy more complex than in previous decades. While the balance of power remained decidedly in favour of employers as evident by their control over the forestry administration, they found it increasingly neces sary to alter their labour and lobbying strategies. To defend their managerial prerogatives and economic interests against public demands for social reform and a Liberal government leaning toward intervention, employers' associations per fected their tactics and placed even more pressure on the state. Behind these outward signs of employer dominance, the question still remains; how much control did employers have over the state? The more nuanced concept of "relative autonomy" provides a stronger theo retical base for examining historical events within the province than a "captive state" model. In Ralph Miliband's earlier work, The State in Capitalist Society, he maintained that the state's independence even m a democratic society was under mined by capitalist political forces infiltrating the top positions of government and bureaucracy. Although the members of die dominant class do not normally make up die government, the state personnel who direct institutions became so closely tied economically and politically